Most of you probably know that I have had this film on my Virtual Razzie list since the beginning of the year.

Many of you said that this was harmless compared to some other bad movies being released this year. This film's three predecessors and their fans committed capital crimes against pop culture by winning awards over far superior movies like "Avatar", "The Dark Knight", and "Inception".

Miquel, Miguel, Miguel....(wow, it has been awhile since I got to type that!) The awards this movie managed to "win" were coveted trophies like the MTV Teen Choice Awards. That was probably the most prestigious of a dreary group. This movie hasn't commited any "capital crimes" against pop culture or anything else. It is a harmless series of films...it appeals to a very specific audience and compared to some of the outrageous crap that has been released this year, it is a wild waste of our time to even be paying attention to it. In fact, if you really wanted to do serious harm to the franchise, you would never mention it here again.

Depending on its Tomatometer Rating and Metascore, this film could either win big or lose big. I am uncertain how this will turn out. Once the bulk of critical scores come in, I might have some idea, but I won't totally be sure until the critics release their 'Worst of 2011' lists.

My guess is that it will be reasonably successful at the box-office and get a lukewarm reception from critics. I doubt that it will make anyone's Worst of 2011 list, given the overwhelming competition this year.

Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

The key to this whole discussion is really the phrase after the last comma: "...but it's strictly for fans of the francise." Precisely.

If the people who made this movie were trying to sneak algebra lessons into the proceedings, they'd be screwing the pooch painfully. If they were trying to get me to see it (in the absense of being force fed it pending upcoming Razzie nominations) it would be a huge mistake. But, they know their audience, and they are evidently giving them what they want.

Compared to crap like Jack and Jill or the Smurfs this just isn't in the same league!

Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

This is exactly my problem with the movie: It has written "for the fans" all over it. The extra long kissing scenes don't leave a doubt about that. They are not even trying to do it right, they are trying to make their fans happy and seem to succeed with it.

With "Eclipse", they tried to reach a male audience, in which they didn't really succeed apart from better reviews. The source material is for women, period. And the money they will make mainly comes from fans, so why would they make big changes only to get universal credit, which they knew wasn't going to happen anyways, and upset those fans?

The sloppy dialogue and the jumping from one scene to another leaves too many questions unexplained though. Terrible writing.The other thing that really stands out as a failure are those CGI wolves. They strangely look out of place, worse than the ones in the previous movie. And here I believe David Slade had an idea of how to do that, while Condon knows his romantic ways but has no clue about CGI if he thought that looked good.

Speaking of "The Smurfs": With this movie I feel the source material has been violated.With Breaking Dawn, I wonder what could have been done better, since there wasn't much of a chance to improve that creepy story or the shallow characters that Meyer wrote about, and that is the core problem. As somebody pointed out, that last book is even disliked by fans. I wonder if Meyer is aware of how her series has become a laughing
stock. At least she gets called out by renowned authors frequently.

But again, how to judge a movie when the film makers were exclusivly planning on giving the fans what they wanted and didn't even try to make an universally liked movie, because they knew it wasn't going to be liked no matter what??? Weird situation. Opinions please...

At the risk of sounding like a Migeul supporter I'm going to disagree
slightly with the above statement, had this movie been getting the same
reviews as "Eclipse" then i would say that the phrase strictly for the
fans would be appropriate, but as it stands it's getting hammered badly,
lukewarm would've been "Eclipse". Add on to the fact that the acting
has been extremely poor throughout the series and that it's doing a
very poor cash grab similar to what Harry Potter did (except they did it
right) by dividing the finale into 2 parts, and I think you have a very
worthy top tier Razzie candidate.

Now normally i would be against razzing this series cause for the most
part it isn't as bad as the rep it gets -- it's not good by any means, and
is definitely over-hyped, but it's not Razzie worthy
(save for New Moon's "acting"). But with the overwhelmingly
negative opinion on this movie and the hype surrounding it, it would
actually be a disservice for the Razzies not to at least consider it.

I don't have pet peeves, I have major psychotic f**king hatreds! George Carlin

My point is that they know their audience and they are making a movie that appeals to them. I may not like it, you may not like it, but there is a reasonably large fan base out there that does. I think that puts it in different realm than a movie like Jack and Jill that is actually trying to have a broad appeal, but just sucks. The people that made this movie don't give a hoot whether or not I ever go see it. A movie that should really be in the Razzie contention is one that the producers want me to see, but misfires.

Now, someone might point to Atlas Shrugged and offer that the people who made that movie didn't care whether or not I went to see it either. I am decidedly not in the audience to which they were attempting to appeal. But the difference is, AS even failed with its target audience. If scores of teenage girls walk out of Breaking Wind Part 1 offering the opinion that it really blows, then we probably need to take a closer look. But the guess here is that they will go see it and like it enough to go see Part 2 as well.

Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

For sure a lot of people are hoping Breaking Wind Fart 1 will sweep the Razzies. I didn't like the movie, but think it needs to be debated how much sense it makes to compare it to movies like "Abduction", "Red Riding Hood" or "I Am Number 4", which were sold as blockbusters but were extremely bad and barely made their budget and P&A costs back.

One could argue that "I Am Number 4" was targeted to a specific audience as well, but looking into it, it seems the book fans weren't happy, while the Twilight book fans appear to be happy with Breaking Wind.

The cash grab story is difficult as well. Unless somebody has read the book and tells me otherwise, it seems the majority of the fans thinks it was neccessary to split it to satisfy their demands. Though I don't know how neccessary it was for the respective fans to see "SCRE4M", "Trannies 3" and "POTC 4", for example.

The whole "cash grab" angle is one we probably come down on too hard here. The last guy in Hollywood that set out specifically to make movies for the sake of creating great art was probably Ed Wood Jr. and we all know how that worked out. That isn't to say that there aren't directors who still occasionally try to do sublime work. I'm guessing that when Spielberg made Shindler's List, it was more about getting the story told from hisperspective than making a lot of money. But if some young, relatively unknown director walked into a major studio production office with the same script tomorrow, he'd get his hind end tossed out onto the street. Spielberg was at a point in his career where simply having his name attached to that movie guaranteed that it would be a cash cow. So, lest we forget, this IS still America and most films are created to make money, not necessarily to raise consciousness about the horrifying religious wars going on between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria. Those stories are left to be told by documentary film makers who are typically lucky if 500 people ever see their films.

Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken

Miguel, let's assume for a second that you're right, that winning public voting awards is as important as you think. Well, then...so what? You can't change the past, and in this case, you can't change the future.

I've analyzing the "relationship" between audiences and critics. When someone loves a movie and I'm about to give my opinion and that person feels I'm about to analyze it, that person gets defensive. Here, we only have 1 critic (our answer to Roger Ebert) that appears on TV, and it's just the news segment. And I tend to wonder why doesn't he insert some humour to his extensive analysis, if Peter Travers and Richard Roeper do it? It won't effect the seriousness of the review, and it would make easier for people to actually listen to what he's saying. Critics don't automatically love artsy movies and hate action flicks.

Anyway, my point is that even if every installment of TWILIGHT had won Worst Picture, the target audiences wouldn't have cared. If anything, it would've made them wanna watch the next movie even more. I'm not saying they shouldn't be razzed, but it has to be for the right reasons: the movie has to represent poor film quality. If this movie gets razzed because the voters hate its success, then they wouldn't be different from the voters of the People's, Teen's and Kids' Choice, MTV Movie Awards, etc., who also vote for the best movie for the wrong reasons.

Just when I thought I couldn't possibly come up with something more offensive than you've ever heard, my assessment of the Twilight saga's influence on popular culture rose upon me:

The Religious Right (or rather Religious Reich) is known for their fear of men being recruited into LGBT-hood. The #1 most common reason a male would see any Twilight movies is to please a significant other who fell for the books. For men who have ANY potential to fall in love with another man, the Twilight Saga is their Pandora's Box... or rather could've been. It won't work with invariably heterosexual men, nor those who eventually happen to NOT find the Twilight movies unwatchable. And come the 2013-014 school year, the Twilight saga will hopefully be all but forgotten.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum